Garfield County

Garfield County, Utah — key demographics (latest Census Bureau data; rounded)

Population size

• 2023 estimate: ~5.2K (Population Estimates Program)
• 2020 Census count: 5,083

Age

• Median age: ~41
• Under 18: ~24%
• 65 and over: ~19%

Gender

• Male: ~51%
• Female: ~49%

Race/ethnicity

• White alone: ~92%
• White alone, not Hispanic or Latino: ~84–85%
• Hispanic or Latino (any race): ~9–10%
• American Indian and Alaska Native: ~2%
• Two or more races: ~3–4%
• Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: each <1%

Households

• Total households: ~2,000
• Average household size: ~2.6–2.7
• Family households: ~65–67% of households
• Married-couple households: ~54% of households
• Owner-occupied housing rate: ~70–73%

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2020 Decennial Census; 2019–2023 American Community Survey 5-year estimates; 2023 Population Estimates Program). Figures are estimates and may not sum to 100% due to rounding and overlapping race/ethnicity categories.

Garfield County, UT — email usage snapshot

• Estimated users: County population ≈5,100. With ~70–75% internet adoption and ~90% of internet users using email, roughly 3,200–3,600 residents use email.
• Age distribution of email users (est.):
  • Under 18: 10–15%
  • 18–34: 25–30% (near‑universal email use)
  • 35–64: 45–50%
  • 65+: 15–20% (lower but rising adoption)
• Gender split: Roughly even (about 50/50).
• Digital access trends:
  • Access mix: Fiber in some town centers (e.g., along UT‑12 corridor) with DSL and fixed wireless common; satellite (including newer LEO options) growing for remote homes and ranches.
  • Mobile: Good coverage along highways (US‑89, UT‑12); limited/none in canyons and backcountry. Seasonal tourism can congest networks in gateway towns.
  • Public/shared access: Libraries, schools, lodgings, and cafes provide Wi‑Fi; many residents are smartphone‑primary for email.
• Local density/connectivity context: Area ≈5,200 sq mi with ~1 person per sq mi—among Utah’s most sparsely populated counties. Long distances and rugged terrain make last‑mile and backhaul challenging; weather and power events can impact reliability.

Notes: Figures are estimates derived from county population and national email/internet adoption benchmarks.

Garfield County, UT: Mobile phone usage snapshot and how it differs from statewide patterns

Resident user estimates

• Population baseline: roughly 5,100–5,300 residents.
• Estimated mobile phone users: 4,200–4,800 residents with an active mobile line (about 80–90% of residents, accounting for children under 10 and a higher share of older adults).
• Smartphone share among users: about 75–85% countywide (lower than Utah’s ~90%+), with a noticeable tail of basic/feature phones among seniors, ranch/outdoor workers, and residents in dead-zone areas.

Demographic breakdown (vs Utah overall)

• Age structure: County skews older than Utah’s very young profile.
  • Teens (12–17): high phone adoption but a bit below statewide; estimate ~85–90% with smartphones vs ~95% statewide.
  • Adults 18–64: smartphone adoption ~85–90% in town centers, dipping in remote areas due to coverage and cost; Utah urban rates are typically >90%.
  • Seniors 65+: smartphone adoption ~55–65% vs ~70–75% statewide; basic phones remain common for voice-first use and better battery life.
• Plan types: Prepaid and single-line plans more prevalent (roughly 30–40% of lines vs ~15–20% statewide) due to price sensitivity, seasonal work, and coverage-driven carrier hopping.
• Device mix: Android share somewhat higher than the Utah average; iPhone somewhat lower, reflecting price and prepaid patterns.
• Household dynamics: Smaller household sizes than Utah average mean fewer multi-line family bundles and more stand‑alone lines.
• Work patterns: Higher share of lines used in field/outdoor work (ranching, tourism, road crews), with emphasis on voice, text, and offline navigation.

Digital infrastructure and coverage (what stands out locally)

• Carriers and footprint:
  • Verizon generally the most reliable in rural stretches; AT&T solid along main corridors and public-safety (FirstNet) routes; T‑Mobile coverage improving but still patchy off‑corridor.
  • 4G LTE is the anchor layer; low‑band 5G appears mainly in/near towns (e.g., Panguitch, Bryce Canyon City) and along US‑89/UT‑12. Mid‑band 5G is sparse; large backcountry areas have no service.
• Geography-driven dead zones:
  • Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument, Aquarius Plateau, and canyons between Escalante and Boulder exhibit extensive no‑signal areas. This is a bigger gap than seen in most Utah counties.
• Backhaul and last‑mile:
  • Tower backhaul in remote sites often relies on microwave rather than fiber, creating capacity ceilings during peak seasons.
  • In-town wireline is anchored by regional providers (for example, South Central Communications) with pockets of fiber in town centers and legacy DSL outside; many outlying residences lack robust wired options.
• Public connectivity nodes:
  • Libraries, schools, visitor centers, lodges, and trailhead areas act as critical Wi‑Fi hubs.
  • Emergency and SAR operations lean on VHF/LMR; residents and outfitters increasingly use satellite messengers for backcountry safety.
• Home internet substitutions:
  • Where cable/fiber isn’t available, households more often lean on LTE hotspots, WISPs, or satellite (including Starlink) than the Utah average. Fixed‑wireless 5G home internet is limited by coverage.

Usage patterns and seasonal effects

• Seasonal congestion far above state norms: Summer tourism to Bryce Canyon/UT‑12 can saturate local sectors in afternoons/evenings, with noticeable slowdowns and timeouts despite good signal bars.
• Coverage-first carrier choice: Residents prioritize usable coverage on ranches and highways over price or 5G marketing; switching carriers when a neighbor’s service works better is common.
• Offline-first behavior: Heavier use of downloaded maps, cached media, and SMS for coordination due to unreliable data in canyons; emergency calling via Wi‑Fi when available.
• Roaming mix: Higher share of international roaming devices in summer (tour buses, self-drive travelers), shifting traffic loads atypically compared with most Utah counties.
• Affordability programs: With the 2024 ACP wind‑down, low‑income users in remote areas likely shifted toward prepaid and promotions, amplifying the local prepaid skew more than in urban Utah.

How Garfield County differs most from Utah statewide

• Lower smartphone penetration and higher basic‑phone use, driven by age, terrain, and coverage gaps.
• Much sparser and more uneven 5G footprint; 4G LTE remains primary, with large no‑service backcountry areas uncommon in the Wasatch Front.
• Higher reliance on prepaid, single‑line plans, and coverage-based carrier switching.
• Greater dependence on mobile hotspots, WISPs, and satellite for home connectivity; fixed fiber/cable availability is patchier.
• Stronger seasonal demand shocks from tourism that can overwhelm rural backhaul and sectors.
• More widespread use of satellite messengers and offline navigation than typical in Utah’s urban counties.

Notes on estimates

• Figures synthesize county population, rural adoption gaps observed nationally, Utah’s higher‑than‑average urban smartphone penetration, and known coverage/geography constraints in southern Utah. They are presented as planning ranges rather than exact counts.

Below is a concise, best-available estimate for residents of Garfield County, Utah. Exact, public county-level social stats aren’t published; figures are inferred from Pew Research Center 2023–2024 U.S. usage (with rural adjustments) and ACS population patterns.

At-a-glance user stats

• Population baseline: ~5.1k residents; ~3.8–4.1k adults (18+).
• Adults using any social media: ~70–80% → about 2.7k–3.1k adult users.
• Including teens (13–17): total social users likely ~3.0k–3.4k.

Age mix of local social users (share of users)

• 13–17: ~8–12% (very high use; heavier on Snapchat/TikTok).
• 18–29: ~18–22%.
• 30–49: ~28–32%.
• 50–64: ~25–28%.
• 65+: ~20–24%.

Gender breakdown (of users)

• Roughly even overall: Women ~50–55%, Men ~45–50% (women over-index on Facebook/Instagram/Pinterest; men on YouTube/Reddit/X).

Most-used platforms among adult residents (share who use each at least occasionally; ranges reflect rural adjustments)

• YouTube: 75–85%.
• Facebook: 60–70% (plus Facebook Messenger 55–65%).
• Instagram: 35–45%.
• Pinterest: 25–35% (skews female).
• TikTok: 25–35% (skews under 35).
• Snapchat: 20–30% (strong among teens/young adults).
• LinkedIn: 15–25%.
• Reddit: 10–15%.
• X/Twitter: 10–15%.
• WhatsApp: 10–20% (higher among seasonal/international workers).
• Nextdoor: <10% (low-density adoption).

Behavioral trends to know

• Facebook as the community hub: local groups for buy/sell/trade, lost & found, school and sports updates, church/community events, road/weather/wildfire alerts, and local government notices. Marketplace is the default classifieds channel.
• Regional spillover: Many groups span neighboring counties (Kane/Wayne/Garfield) to reach critical mass.
• Tourism economy effect: Instagram and Facebook are key for small businesses, events, and hiring; scenic content performs well. Seasonal spikes in posting and engagement late spring–early fall.
• Short-form video growth: TikTok (and Instagram Reels) used for outdoor/lifestyle and park-area content; youth-heavy audience; local news still relies more on Facebook posts.
• YouTube utility: How-to/DIY, ranching/outdoors, vehicle repair; residents engage with long-form practical content. Public meetings or local informational videos do well when available.
• Messaging norms: Facebook Messenger is the coordination backbone for parent groups, teams, and church activities; Snapchat DMs among teens. WhatsApp pockets exist among multilingual/seasonal workers.
• Engagement patterns: Peaks before work (6–8 a.m.), lunch, and evenings (7–10 p.m.); weekend activity is strong. Trust is highest for posts from known locals and official pages; rumor control and timely updates earn outsized reach.

Notes on methodology/confidence

• Percentages are derived from Pew national platform usage (2023–2024) with rural adjustments and then applied to local adult population estimates; treat as directional ranges rather than precise counts. For exact targeting, verify with platform ad reach tools and local page/group analytics.